TIMMEH: "On Sunday, the headline in your hometown paper, Chicago Tribune: "Louis Farrakhan Backs Obama for President at Nation of Islam Convention in Chicago." Do you accept the support of Louis Farrakhan?"

SEN. OBAMA: "Sweet Chocolate Jesus... what are you, fucking retarded? How many times do I have to explain this to you nincompoops before you finally get it?? 'Research,' motherfucker: get to know it. Shit. Here... I... go... again. Try to keep up. I have been very clear in my denunciation of Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments. I think that they are unacceptable and reprehensible. I did not solicit this support. Got that? Or is Karl Rove's dick still in your ear? Fucking cracker."

February 28, 2008 McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out

By CARL HULSE
WASHINGTON — The question has nagged at the parents of Americans born outside the continental United States for generations: Dare their children aspire to grow up and become president? In the case of Senator John McCain of Arizona, the issue is becoming more than a matter of parental daydreaming.

Mr. McCain’s likely nomination as the Republican candidate for president and the happenstance of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 are reviving a musty debate that has surfaced periodically since the founders first set quill to parchment and declared that only a “natural-born citizen” can hold the nation’s highest office.

Almost since those words were written in 1787 with scant explanation, their precise meaning has been the stuff of confusion, law school review articles, whisper campaigns and civics class debates over whether only those delivered on American soil can be truly natural born. To date, no American to take the presidential oath has had an official birthplace outside the 50 states.

“There are powerful arguments that Senator McCain or anyone else in this position is constitutionally qualified, but there is certainly no precedent,” said Sarah H. Duggin, an associate professor of law at Catholic University who has studied the issue extensively. “It is not a slam-dunk situation.”.....

(CNN) -- New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has publicly flirted with the idea of a run for the White House as an independent, said he will not run for president.

The current presidential candidates were showing signs of the "independent leadership" he believes the nation needs, Bloomberg said during a press conference Thursday.

He also said he would support the candidate who "does the right things" and helps get "the ideologues out of the decision-making process."

Bloomberg pressed the candidates to show voters "concrete plans" for the problems facing the nation that include details on how those plans will pass Congress and how the programs will be funded.

"We all have a responsibility to help move our country forward," he said. "It's time for people to move away from just saying 'I am for motherhood and apple pie.'"

Bloomberg, a former Republican who become an independent while in office, announced his decision in an op-ed posted on the New York Times Web site Wednesday night and published in the paper's Thursday edition.

"I listened carefully to those who encouraged me to run, but I am not -- and will not be -- a candidate for president," Bloomberg wrote.

The 66-year-old billionaire had publicly repeated that he was not a candidate for president in recent months, while leaving open the option that he could become one.

"Bloomberg only wanted to run if he thought he could win, and I think he sees very little room," said Mark Halperin, a senior editor for Time magazine.

A source close to the mayor told CNN in January that he had collected poll data assessing his chances and that the mayor was expected to make his final decision by March.

"The very appeal that Bloomberg would have brought to the race is the very appeal that [John] McCain and [Barack] Obama have for a lot of voters," Halperin said on CNN's "American Morning."

Bloomberg mentioned in his editorial that he would work to "steer the national conversation away from partisanship and toward unity; away from ideology and toward common sense; away from sound bites and toward substance."

Bloomberg, a former Democrat who won the mayor's office as a Republican, would have been on a strict timetable to start collecting signatures to get on the ballot, a process that varies from state to state.

At a summit designed to bridge the divide between Democrats and Republicans, Bloomberg said in January partisanship is limiting the nation's progress.

"People have stopped working together, government is dysfunctional, there's no collaborating and congeniality," he said. "America is being held back."

In the opinion piece, Bloomberg said he's hopeful that the current Democratic and Republican campaigns will address an independent approach to governing.

"I have watched this campaign unfold, and I am hopeful that the current campaigns can rise to the challenge by offering truly independent leadership," he said. "The most productive role that I can serve is to push them forward, by using the means at my disposal to promote a real and honest debate."

Bloomberg could also play a role in the election if he makes an endorsement. He is good friends with McCain, and he also likes Obama, Halperin said.

"If a candidate takes an independent, nonpartisan approach -- and embraces practical solutions that challenge party orthodoxy -- I'll join others in helping that candidate win the White House," he said in the opinion piece.

Bloomberg was elected mayor of New York in 2001, two months after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center. He was re-elected in 2005.

A native of Medford, Massachusetts, with an MBA from Harvard Business School, Bloomberg became a billionaire, first working with Wall Street securities bank Salomon Brothers then as founder of Bloomberg LP, a financial news and information service.

Clinton campaign memo highlights Obama’s winning-streak momentum, ad outspending in Texas, Ohio, Vermont and Rhode Island, says if he can’t win all four, then the message that Democrats are “having second thoughts” is clear. Read it here.

To: Interested Parties

From: The Clinton Campaign

Date: Friday, February 29, 2008

RE: Obama Must-Wins

The media has anointed Barack Obama the presumptive nominee and he’s playing the part.

With an eleven state winning streak coming out of February, Senator Obama is riding a surge of momentum that has enabled him to pour unprecedented resources into Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont.

The Obama campaign and its allies are outspending us two to one in paid media and have sent more staff into the March 4 states. In fact, when all is totaled, Senator Obama and his allies have outspent Senator Clinton by a margin of $18.4 million to $9.2 million on advertising in the four states that are voting next Tuesday.

Senator Obama has campaigned hard in these states. He has spent time meeting editorial boards, courting endorsers, holding rallies, and - of course - making speeches.

If he cannot win all of these states with all this effort, there’s a problem.

Should Senator Obama fail to score decisive victories with all of the resources and effort he is bringing to bear, the message will be clear:

Democrats, the majority of whom have favored Hillary in the primary contests held to date, have their doubts about Senator Obama and are having second thoughts about him as a prospective standard-bearer.

(CNN) — Hillary Clinton Thursday jabbed at Sen. Barack Obama for being a first term senator and called her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination a "blank screen."

In an interview on ABC's Nightline Thursday night, Clinton dismissed notion's Barack Obama voters are uninformed, but said the Democratic presidential front-runner aptly described himself in his 2006 book, "The Audacity of Hope."

"I think the best description, actually, is in Barack's own book, the last book he wrote, 'Audacity of Hope,' where he said that he's a blank screen," she said in the interview. "And people of widely differing views project what they want to believe onto him. And then he went on to say, 'I am bound to disappoint some, if not all of them.'"

"He was in the state Senate, what, three years ago, four years ago?" Clinton said in continued jabs. "It's hard to know exactly what his positions are because they have changed rather rapidly in that four-year period. But there is something very appealing, and people have a right to vote for whomever they want."

The comments came a day before the Clinton campaign launched a tough new ad in Texas that aims to portray Clinton as considerably more prepared to handle a foreign policy crises than Obama. Over scenes of sleeping children, the ads narrator asks, "Who do you want answering the phone the phone?" at 3 in the morning.

Obama Campaign Manager David Plouffe forcefully responded to that ad in a conference call with reporters Friday morning.

"We don't think the ads are going to be effective at all, because Senator Clinton has already had her red phone moment. It was a decision whether to allow George Bush to invade Iraq, and she answered affirmatively," Plouffe said.

The Texas Democratic Party warned Thursday that election night caucuses scheduled for next Tuesday could be delayed or disrupted after aides to Hillary Clinton threatened to sue over the party's complicated delegate selection process.

In a letter sent out late Thursday to both the Clinton and Barack Obama campaigns, Texas Democratic Party lawyer Chad Dunn warned a lawsuit could ruin the Democrats' effort to re-energize voters just as they are turning out in record numbers.

Spokesmen for both campaigns said there were no plans to sue ahead of the March 4 election.

"It has been brought to my attention that one or both of your campaigns may already be planning or intending to pursue litigation against the Texas Democratic Party,'' Dunn wrote in the letter, obtained by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. "Such action could prove to be a tragedy for a reinvigorated Democratic process.''

Democratic sources said both campaigns have made it clear that they might consider legal options over the complicated delegate selection process, which includes both a popular vote and evening caucuses. But the sources made it clear that the Clinton campaign in particular had warned of an impending lawsuit.

"Both campaigns have made it clear that they would go there if they had to, but I think the imminent threat is coming from one campaign,'' said one top Democratic official, referring to the Clinton campaign. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity.

Another Democratic official who was privvy to the discussions confirmed that Clinton representatives made veiled threats in a telephone call this week.

"Officials from Sen. Clinton's campaign at several times throughout the call raised the specter of 'challenging the process,' the official said. "The call consisted of representatives from both campaigns and the Democratic Party.''

The source, who asked not to identified by name because he did not have authorization to speak about the matter, said Clinton 's political director, Guy Cecil, had forcefully raised the possibility of a courtroom battle.

But Adrienne Elrod, Clinton's top Texas spokeswoman, said campaign and party officials had merely discussed election night procedures and that the campaign was merely seeking a written agreement in advance. She could not elaborate on the details of the agreement the Clinton campaign is seeking.

"It is our campaign's standard operating procedure that we need to see what we are agreeing to in writing before we agree to it,'' Elrod said. "No legal action is being taken. We have no reason to take any legal action.''

Obama spokesman Josh Earnest said the Obama campaign had no plans to sue.

Hillary's Joe Lieberman moment, or, why I will not support her in November

There's been a lot of discussion, I'm sure, about Hillary's comments today where she came right out and stated that she believes that John McCain is more qualified to be President than Barack Obama. I've tried to stay out of the fray and avoided most of the discussions here in GD , other than a cursory glance, but today Hillary has crossed the Rubicon, and so must I.

Mrs. Clinton, today you openly endorsed the Republican candidate, should you not win the nomination. That is unforgiveable.

Today, Mrs. Clinton, you abrogated your status as a leader in the Democratic Party, and made manifest your desire to divide and destroy that Party if you don't get your way.

Today, Mrs. Clinton, you joined the ranks of such Party luminaries as Strom Thurmond, Henry Wallace, George Wallace, and Ralph Nader, who put their own egos ahead of the principles that the Party stands for in a vital election year.

Today, Mrs. Clinton, you have betrayed your Party the same way your husband betrayed you on numerous occasions. The difference is, we are not as saintly or as stupid as to forgive you.

You have divided our Party, Mrs. Clinton, perhaps beyond repair. I will not work for a Party who would select someone like you as its leader. I will not be a member of a Party that has you as its standard-holder.

If my Senators, Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez, and my Governor, Jon Corzine, do not revoke their endorsements of you and vote against you in Denver, I swear by all that is Holy that I will work feverishly to defeat them; in their next Primary if possible, in their next General if necessary.

If my County Chair, Lou Magazzu, does not renounce his endorsement of you after this stunt you pulled today, then I will campaign to oust him as Chairman, even if I have to run against him myself.

And if you, through some mixture of chicanery, blackmail, and legal maneuvering, take the Party's nomination, then I will be saying goodbye to the Party that my family worked hard to build to dominance on our local level. As someone who worked on every campaign since Walter Mondale's quixotic bid in 1984, it will be difficult to say the least, but I will. I will find another candidate whose platform I can support, and I will actively work for your defeat in November.

Your actions have been unforgiveable. If you have any shred of decency left, if you ever had one to begin with, you will go on television after the polls have closed tomorrow night and announce your withdrawal. You do not deserve anyone's vote, and for you to continue asking for them is the height of hubris.

Hillary Clinton may be poised for a big night tonight, with wins in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island. Clinton aides say this will be the beginning of her comeback against Barack Obama. There's only one problem with this analysis: they can't count.

I'm no good at math either, but with the help of Slate’s Delegate Calculator I've scoped out the rest of the primaries, and even if you assume huge Hillary wins from here on out, the numbers don't look good for Clinton. In order to show how deep a hole she's in, I've given her the benefit of the doubt every week for the rest of the primaries.

Then it's on to Wyoming on Saturday, where, let's say, the momentum of today helps her win 53-47. Next Tuesday in Mississippi—where African-Americans play a big role in the Democratic primary—she shocks the political world by winning 52-48.

Then on April 22, the big one, Pennsylvania—and it's a Hillary blowout, 60-40, with Clinton picking up a whopping 32 delegates. She wins both of Guam's two delegates on May 30, and Indiana's proximity to Illinois does Obama no good on May 6, with the Hoosiers going for Hillary 55-45. The same day brings another huge upset in a heavily African-American state: enough North Carolina blacks desert Obama to give the state to Hillary 52-48, netting her five more delegates.

Suppose May 13 in West Virginia is no kinder to Obama, and he loses by double digits, netting Clinton two delegates. The identical 55-45 result on May 20 in Kentucky nets her five more. The same day brings Oregon, a classic Obama state. Oops! He loses there 52-48. Hillary wins by 10 in Montana and South Dakota on June 3, and primary season ends on June 7 in Puerto Rico with another big Viva Clinton! Hillary pulls off a 60-40 landslide, giving her another 11 delegates. She has enjoyed a string of 16 victories in a row over three months.

So at the end of regulation, Hillary's the nominee, right? Actually, this much-too-generous scenario (which doesn't even account for Texas's weird "pri-caucus" system, which favors Obama in delegate selection) still leaves the pledged-delegate score at 1,634 for Obama to 1,576 for Clinton. That's a 58-delegate lead.

Let's say the Democratic National Committee schedules do-overs in Florida and (heavily African-American) Michigan. Hillary wins big yet again. But the chances of her netting 56 delegates out of those two states would require two more huge margins. (Unfortunately the Slate calculator isn't helping me here.)

So no matter how you cut it, Obama will almost certainly end the primaries with a pledged-delegate lead, courtesy of all those landslides in February. Hillary would then have to convince the uncommitted superdelegates to reverse the will of the people. Even coming off a big Hillary winning streak, few if any superdelegates will be inclined to do so. For politicians to upend what the voters have decided might be a tad, well, suicidal.

For all of those who have been trashing me for saying this thing is over, please feel free to do your own math. Give Hillary 75 percent in Kentucky and Indiana. Give her a blowout in Oregon. You will still have a hard time getting her through the process with a pledged-delegate lead.

The Clintonites can spin to their heart's content about how Obama can't carry any large states besides Illinois. How he can't close the deal. How they've got the Big Mo now.